Tuesday, June 13, 2006

More on Video Games vs Chess

I'll just bring these up from the comments. Remember, I know less about modern video games than I realized, so go easy on me.

Two hypotheses:

1) Chess takes a lifetime to master, but any one computer game is over and done with after, I would guess, no more than six months of daily play. True or False?

2) A video game is mastered through a series of trial and error until the correct strategy and type of tactics are discovered. In other words, one strategy and type of tactics will always ultimately dominate a video game. And then it is solved and simply a matter of reflexes. True or False? No particular strategy or tactics dominate Chess after hundred of years, although naturally some are in different categories of worth than others.

Here are some other thoughts:

Here is a somewhat better defense of video games that raises some of the same points as the previously cited one. It properly links to an article from the APA slamming video games as an alternative point of view. Since the article is arguing against the idea that video games are valueless, rather than against the idea that violent video games are fine for kids, it succeeds more admirably. As to the violence, the article recommends that children not have access to M and AO games. And makes clear that video gaming, like all culture, is now an adult activity as well as a children's activity, and so shouldn't be condemned for catering to adult tastes.

I didn't know that Chess is a "recognized sport" in the Olympics, which means that it is being considered for inclusion as a main event. The list also includes Bridge. On this basis, people are trying to get video games recognized, as well.

I have some questions: Which video game? Will the rules to this video game, as well as the platform it is played on, be frozen for 4 years, like in every other game or sport? How about the next twenty years, so that it can be in at least five Olympics? Don't we need a stable game before this happens?

Post a Comment